what's more important 4 our future..dominant 1/2 or dominant 3/4?

In my mind, that this team will actually go as far as Griffin goes. If Griff becomes the star he is capable of becoming, this team is a championship contender for a long time. If he busts, we could have trouble I actually see some similarities with this team and the T-Wolves team of a few years ago. Two combo forwards (Googs/KG vs. Mo/Griff) and an energetic guard (Marbury vs. Francis). However, we included two things they lack - offcourt and on court chemistry (that team was broken because Marbury wasn't too well liked, especially by Googs), and Mobley vs. whoever they threw out there (Chris Carr? Peeler).

We also have added a bench. Mooch, K9, Langhi, and Morris can be vital to the future.

That leaves the 5 as our question. We thought Cato was the answer. To this point we were wrong. Get Cato firing on all cylinders, and foaming at the mouth, and this team is dangerous even THIS year, as a spoiler.

 

Nice post Verse!

I think you are on to something big.

Do you have a lot of first hand knowledge of Griffin?

I'm just want to know why you feel so strongly for Griffren's rise to dominance.

 

Great post. I've come to believe that we agree on everything except Shandon Anderson.

Historically, I think that players have dominated from every position... except small forward (with the exception of Bird). Which, unfortunately, Griffin is right now. So the first necessary step is for Griffin to bulk up. SF's make great side-kicks... a la Scottie Pippen. but who's the greatest 3 of the past decade? Grant Hill. And he never managed to get the Pistons past the 2nd round. Bird himself never won a championship without a terrific supporting caste. Not to diminish his accomplishments... but I do think it's generally the least important position on the court.

On offense, the point guard is perfectly capable of dictating the course of a game. That's John Stockton. In most assessments, however, a guy like Malone, who actually puts the ball in the basket, is more valuable. But what if that point guard can score as well as create? Well, then he's the scoring point guard, a la Magic Johnson. A player who can score himself or dish to his teammate trumps any other in terms of offensive value, imo. Control of the paint is important, I admit. But I think the Bulls did a great job in demonstrating that it's not necessary.

On defense, it's the other way around. A disruptive PG can be valuable, but it's the intimidation in the paint that's most important. And that's where Griffin's true value, imo, lies. Griffin had one of the best freshman seasons ever because of his abilities as a weak-side shotblocker. Slashers and post players, beware. Houston's biggest problem in playing without Hakeem, imo, is the fact that none of their players had any intimidation factor in the paint. Sorry, Tracy McGrady's not going to respect Kelvin Cato or Jason Collier's "presence." But Griffin can change that. He's capable of putting some "fear" into Tmac's heart whenever he puts up a layup.

I think that the old saying "defense wins championships" is that much bunk. I think defense and offense are equally valuable. But it's harder to find a good shotblocker who can also score than anything else. Therefore, a superstar Griffin would be more valuable than Francis.

 

I'm not going to look through the annals of basketball history to tell you what the "right" answer to this question should be, since the Rockets are building a team they hope will be an anomaly to what precedent has told us a team should look like, though the basic concept of an inside-outside threat is still there in Francis and Griffin, with your choice of complementary 3rd star in Mobley and Taylor.

I do have a problem with your analysis of Eddie Griffin.

In some ways he is similar to Rasheed Wallace, particularly in regards to his post up game. Both players have a quick release in the post, which makes their shot virtually unblockable.

He most likely compares himself to Wallace, however, because he's from Philly. Griffin doesn't have the range on his shot at this point, and it's not as fluid, or the athleticism of Wallace, though I tend to agree that Griffin's game most resembles his.

As far as the comparisons to Tim Thomas, thomas is quicker, a better ball handler, and doesn't play in the post. I don't really see a valid comparison skillwise.

Don't compare him to KG. Garnett is in the upper,upper echelon of players in the league athleticism wise. Garnett's not intense? Don't expect Griffin to ever be a vocal leader that shows a lot of emotion on the floor. Think Duncan attitude wise.

I think you're being a tad bit naive in saying Griffin has a "go to move" from seeing him in one summer league game. Good offensive player he is, great offensive player he is not. Over time, he could develop into a very good low post threat, and that could be a very valuable asset given the fact that the number of bigmen with back to the basket games are decreasing by the year.

I don't think he's ever going to be a player you can count on to carry you in the playoffs on the offensive end. That's the job of our guards and Mo Taylor. His role as a defensive anchor is what's going makes him vital to our future. Any offense he gives you is just a bonus his first season or two in the league. He'll develop that part of his game over time, but if he can translate his college success defensively to the pros faster than we think, which I think he can, then we may not be worrying about if we can get into the playoffs, but rather what seed we'll have.

 

TPL:

I've seen a couple of threads lately that have labeled Griffin as "not extremely athletic." I don't understand this, quite frankly. From what I saw of him while he was at Seton Hall, he was extremely athletically gifted, certainly as much so as Rasheed Wallace. Once he bulks up, I think he will be much more "athletic" than Wallace. not sure if he'll be as valuable, sicne I agree with you that he needs to work on his offense a bit. But in terms of "raw athleticism..." this board is underselling him.

 

I guess comparisons to Wallace athleticism wise are somewhat valid. Maybe Wallace's freakishly long wingspan, an attribute Griffin shares, is what masked his only above average athleticism and made me think he was an athletic freak.

Griffin is definitely a better shotblocker and rebounder than Wallace.

Haven, I guess it depends on how one defines athleticsm ie: quickness or jumping ability. I think Griffin is a nice mix of both, but not a freak in either respect, and in some ways people do sell him short in this regard. The same applies to Tim Duncan. He's not extremely quick and can't jump that high, but no one can deny that he's an athletic specimen.

If Griffin can ever bottle that anger, he'll be a monster verse. Definitely agree with you about that.

I do think Griffin was one of the more polished players coming out of this draft, along with Battier and Joe Johnson. Talent wise, he should have been the consensus number 1 pick.

 

Griffin

Defense wins championships is the short and sweet answer. Another way to look at it, is how he performs defensively will dictate the effectiveness of our offense.

If he can provide the inside presence we so direly need, our guards won't have to worry about rebounding and helping on defense so much, which will lead to a better fastbreak, and in turn make us a better team overall offensively.

One thing that hurt the Rockets last year, was the lack of easy buckets on the offensive end. They had to work for everything they got.

With Griffin on board, you hope to boost your production in this department. You don't want to have to rely on the halfcourt set so much offensively. Let them run and look for opportunistic buckets the 1st 3 quarters, and worry about half court execution in the 4th.